Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

contract: ContractRequestMessage should be handled also on an existing negotiation #3380

Closed
ndr-brt opened this issue Aug 22, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #3390
Closed

contract: ContractRequestMessage should be handled also on an existing negotiation #3380

ndr-brt opened this issue Aug 22, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #3390
Assignees
Labels
dataspace-protocol related to the dataspace protocol enhancement New feature or request
Milestone

Comments

@ndr-brt
Copy link
Member

ndr-brt commented Aug 22, 2023

Feature Request

Currently, ContractRequestMessage is always causing a new ContractNegotiation to be created, but in fact, according to the state machine, it could happen also an already existing negotiation.

The behavior should be:

  • if the negotiation pointed by processId already exists, apply notifyRequested on it
  • otherwise, create a new negotiation.

Which Areas Would Be Affected?

ContractNegotiationProtocolService

Why Is the Feature Desired?

dsp completion

@ndr-brt ndr-brt added enhancement New feature or request dataspace-protocol related to the dataspace protocol labels Aug 22, 2023
@ndr-brt ndr-brt added this to the Milestone 11 milestone Aug 22, 2023
@ndr-brt ndr-brt changed the title contract: ContractRequestMessage should be handled also on an existing contract contract: ContractRequestMessage should be handled also on an existing negotiation Aug 22, 2023
@ndr-brt ndr-brt self-assigned this Aug 28, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
dataspace-protocol related to the dataspace protocol enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant